Green New Deal seems a bit Red

Let’s talk about climate change.

Don’t get hot under the collar. This won’t take very long and it won’t be too deep.

A popular talking point on right-wing cable TV (looking at Russian sock puppet Tucker Carlson) is how the crazy environmentalists want to ground all air traffic, with the sub topic that the politicians who want to keep you from flying, themselves fly, often using chartered private jets.

That much is true. Often out of necessity — but sometimes because they just prefer it — politicians and current political candidates do use private jets. So do celebrities. A lot.

The idea of grounding all air traffic in the name of green meanness is spoken as if it were a fact. 

It is not a fact. Read the bill yourself.

It is not included in House Resolution 109, sponsored by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — you remember her — on behalf of some 70 other Honorables.

U.S. Rep Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (Photo: Newsweek)

It is known as the Green New Deal. It says not one word about grounding airplanes. It does not say one word about banning cars operated on fossil fuels. Cows farting? Not mentioned.

Fox News’ Carlson should read it because he keeps rattling on about how “they” want to keep “you” from flying. Maybe he has read it and just ignores it because it doesn’t fit his reactionary narrative.

So, if you were worried, the Green New Deal does not want to take your car nor keep you from flying into the stratosphere. If that was your worry, you can stop right here. In some ways, HR 109 is more Red than Green.

The bill is repetitious, wonky and double-talky, but it is not that radical, at least the environmental action part. To my surprise, there is no direct demand for something affordable and simple: Planting billions of trees. Maybe that is too small an idea for the visionaries.

The bill says human activity is the “dominant cause” of global warming, it’s causing forest fires and sea levels to rise, there will be mass migrations, 350 million will be exposed to deadly heat, and therefore we must get to “net zero global emissions by 2050.”

Okaaaay.

It then takes a hard Left turn from environment to economics, creating a weird salad of lower life expectancy, wage stagnation, declining socioeconomic mobility, income inequality and the wage gap between genders and races.

Um, climate change?

HR 109 reads like it was cut and pasted by a Brown University Soc 101 class from a primer jointly authored by communist Karl Marx and anthropologist Margaret Mead.

It’s kind of AOC’s green dream.

“Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systematic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices. . . .”

Um, climate change? AOC seems to have lost the thread.

So HR 109 seeks to “create millions of good, high-wage jobs” and create “unprecedented levels of prosperity” and reverse “systemic injustices.”

There is no detail how this pie in the sky will be baked.

The action agenda calls for eliminating green-house gas emissions “as much as technologically feasible.”

It wants to convert residences and manufacturing to clean energy, to the extent that is feasible, which is reasonable.

More language is spent on creating union jobs and wages and free health care and workplace safety than what you would expect. It is more New Deal than Green.

But it is not touching your car or your airline seat, despite what Tucker Carlson tells you.

28 thoughts on “Green New Deal seems a bit Red”

  1. The sort of left-right hysteria that dominates most any political conversation these days, at least among politicians and the media, makes it darn hard to have a rational discussion about much of anything important. We all know that climate change is real, and happening, and that we need to come up with some practical ways to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions, as well as prepare our cities and towns for more extreme weather events. It’s frustrating.

    1. David,
      Climate change is real. It may have started with the Ice Age. Most professionals believe that things change on their own. True, we humans polluted the hell out of this planet – all in the name of a buck.
      You got in before I finished my comment. Please read it. There’s more to be said, but this is not my blog.
      Tony

  2. In this morning’s Wall Street Breakfast:

    “The U.S. solar industry has lost 62K new jobs and $19B in investments because of the Trump administration’s tariffs on imported panels imposed nearly two years ago, according to a new report from the U.S. Solar Industries Association. Despite the tariffs, global panel prices have continued to fall due to an oversupply in top producer China, while U.S. prices are among the highest in the world for solar.”

    Didn’t someone say ‘trade wars were good and easy to win’? Yup.

    1. David,
      Me again. Life is very complicated. Look inside anyone’s home. As a child, you had to get along with your parents and siblings. When you marry, you have to get along with your better half as you nurture the entire family. All of that with willing people, then we now have China. They were taught how to screw us, the Americans, who showed them how to make money off of us Americans. Does any one with a brain think that China will willingly cut their profits, giving the United States an equal foothold in trading ? Thus the tariffs. A little pain now for a better tomorrow.
      Solar Energy. Back in the ’70s & ’80, Uncle Sam wanted to increase energy out put without the carbon emissions. Wind, Solar and other types of energy were tried with the tax incentives. Those incentives for solar, I believe, are down to 30%, which was scheduled to run out, but our President extended the break.
      I had GeoThermal in my Jersey residence. Same deal. Timing is everything.
      The other factor not previously mentioned is this. Big Business. Do you think the big boys want competition? Hell No! To quote some famous politician, “it’s all about the Benjamins, baby”.
      Tony

  3. HAPPY WEDNESDAY !!!
    For all of you that DID NOT look up HR 109, here’s a brief summary taken from CONGRESS.GOV
    Shown Here:
    Introduced in House (02/07/2019)
    This resolution calls for the creation of a Green New Deal with the goals of

    achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions;
    establishing millions of high-wage jobs and ensuring economic security for all;
    investing in infrastructure and industry;
    securing clean air and water, climate and community resiliency, healthy food, access to nature, and a sustainable environment for all; and
    promoting justice and equality.
    The resolution calls for accomplishment of these goals through a 10-year national mobilization effort. The resolution also enumerates the goals and projects of the mobilization effort, including

    building smart power grids (i.e., power grids that enable customers to reduce their power use during peak demand periods);
    upgrading all existing buildings and constructing new buildings to achieve maximum energy and water efficiency;
    removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation and agricultural sectors;
    cleaning up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites;
    ensuring businesspersons are free from unfair competition; and
    providing higher education, high-quality health care, and affordable, safe, and adequate housing to all.
    In laymen’s terms, this is called a pipe dream. True, FOX and their anchors have a ball making fun of the bartender. Also true, the left side mocks the right side.
    What is completely missed, and probably on purpose, is that strides that we humans have made and continue to make. The International Building Codes which almost all nations subscribe to, has make inroads since there inception twenty years ago. In the states, we use the Uniform Construction Code. Pennsylvania permits that code to be amended, not New Jersey. That’s not to say that all codes are always adhered to. That lesson came out in the previous blog.
    The United States, since the ’70s, has made tremendous strides in protecting the environment. The feds used to assist the technological changes with tax incentives. Many of those breaks are long gone. A good example is “Trash to Steam” plants. The incinerators built in Fairless, PA were capable of burning nuclear waste – with the proper scrubbers (air filters). Two plants were built. The third foundation was poured at that was it, because the incentive went away. Same with coal burners and other low quality fuels. Money talks. That’s why NAFTA came into being. We couldn’t pollute, so we destroyed Mexico, then Asia.
    Did I put anybody to sleep, yet?
    Tony

  4. The “Devil’s in the Details” as Stu has pointed out, even while it’s hard for me to accept the urgency. Seems we have been taking about weather in this way for what, 50, 60, 70 years? I believe an ice age was part of the conversation during this time frame. I prefer common sense over a non settled science. Rather than “Stopping to smell the roses” like a cynic might, I’d much rather see them grow.

    Speaking of the Devil, It will be interesting to follow the details of HR 109 in the newspaper media.

  5. My science teachers used to impart knowledge concerning the impending Ice Age. The Earth was cooling. Teachers also emphasized the delusion of the notion of space travel. The Van Allen radiation belts would be barriers to space flight.
    I used to believe that science was a rigorous process where one tested theories. They were challenged in response to objective evidence. Theories got revised. However, environmental science has evolved into a grouping of self-serving lies that bolster the liberal elite’s preferred narrative.
    Find a theory that serves your political inclination and embrace it.

    1. Empirically, “we” are getting warmer. Humanity IS at least partly responsible. The question is what we do about it, and at what cost. Dikes might save Venice, but we may lose the Jersey shore, L.A. and San Fran. Part of Hawaii, too. America can survive all this. Much harder other parts of the world.

      1. HAPPY THURSDAY !!!
        Chicken Little, the sky is not fall’n’.
        Randy, yo begin with, in science, you can only prove fact. Research and testing will prove a theory here on earth. There’s not a whole bunch of fact in outter space.
        Pallie, true, the ice is melting – as it should. We’re talking millimeters, not inches and certainly not feet. Problems in parts of the world are mostly man made. The oceans are slowly rising, but we don’t tap into that water supply because of – wait for it…- MONEY! California desalts water for consumption. Anybody else ? From a engineering view, all problems are fixable. We may have to experiment to find the best solution, but trial and error will produce a winner procedure , whether it be flooding or lack of water or anything else.
        As I said in my previous rants. Our building codes and technology does solve problems. The rest of the world will catch up to “saving the planet”.
        Tony

  6. I clearly recall the TIME Magazine article (front page story) at some time in the 1970s about global cooling. Scientists were in a froth about the coming Ice Age, and proposed such outlandish ideas as sprinkling the polar ice caps with soot to encourage their melting. My point? The Earth has its own climate-change timetable (getting hotter/getting colder), and has managed for some 4 billion years to survive.

    Now, if we are really serious about making changes to the way we live that will have long-term positive benefits, how about a president proposing a 10-year plan (as JFK did when he challenged NASA to take us to the moon) to eliminate internal combustion engines in autos and convert to 100% electric? The feds could finance charging stations from coast to coast, offer tax incentives to give up gasoline-powered cars, etc. All it would take is vision and courage.

  7. How would you create the needed electricity to “charge” the millions plus automobiles? Also, concerning electric cars — how many miles do you get on a full charge in the summer; how many in North Dakota in January? How long does it take to re-charge?

      1. Stu, the sequence is out of order unavoidably. My Bingo response is and please correct if I’m misunderstanding Gordon. Where is the electricity originating from? My answer is coal power, which isn’t clean. Are you saying alternatives come from what? Solar, wind? Straighten me out, it’s getting late.
        Thanks

      1. Does anyone of our age remember when the government mandated increased gas mileage, at a time when getting 20 mpg was a big deal? The auto makers moaned and groaned…then went and improved the gasoline engine to the point where getting 35 mpg is no big deal. I am convinced new, improved, long-range batteries will be developed as soon as the proper incentive is offered: i.e., MONEY.

  8. still HAPPY THURSDAY !!!
    sidebar: I just came in from shoveling coal into 5 gallon buckets . Yesterday, I loaded up the firewood rack. No point to this, except my wife ( and I ) don’t like to help the big money people fatten their wallets !
    Vince, Saudi Arabia has little choice as to fresh water. Good thing that they have deep pockets. The planet is
    constantly warming up each year. Point 00000000000 something. WE have more people, more third world
    countries being supported by our big business, etc., more pollution. ( after we lost the war in VietNam, I think it
    was FORD that was the first company to go in and build a plant. But that’s okay, ’cause FIRESTONE never left )
    Gordon, welcome to the blog. Hope you hang around – and bring a friend. I know that if you take away the urge that all
    of the big players have to be BILLIONAIRES, then things should be a lot better . The internal combustion engine
    has been around forever, it seems. Engineering and technology has proven that 50 MPG is not only reachable,
    but doable. The electric engines constantly get better, and if there were incentives, they would be a lot better.
    Already, after only a few years of actual use, the engineering is adjusting for the temperature extremes that you
    mention. Initially, the batteries, like everything else new, cost an arm and a leg to replace. The following
    generations have gotten a longer life and affordable replacement. And if your anything like me, you’ll blow the
    dust out of the carburetors !
    All of the alternative energies work. Some better than others. If I could swing it, I’ld have my own wind turbine ! ( I
    embrace technology )
    Tom, you can not play bingo and have a green new deal. FORGETABOUTIT !
    I’ll get off my pulpit now
    Tony

    1. Gordon will hang around,Tony. He’s the guy who gave me my first two jobs in journalism — at my collage newspaper (he was the editor)and at the World Telegram & Sun. So we go WAAAY back.

  9. Tony, As usual when I read one of your knowledgeable Rants for about the fifth time, I get it! I’m slow, need to absorb. That’s why I like this type of format. Thanks!

    However, until alternatives can power a Boeing 737 off a tarmac
    I’ll remain A Doubting Tom. And if that should ever happen we will have Big Wind, Big Solar, etc. You know as well as anyone the driving force is money and power=greed, unfortunately mankind’s basic instinct. Utopia is up above, I hope!

    FYI – My wife is The Bingo Lady.
    And are you sure that coal’s not for Christmas stockings?

    Still #1 Tony cheerleader.

    I LOVE THIS BLOG THANK YOU STU!!!

    1. barely still HAPPY THURSDAY !!!
      Tom,
      You’re not slow . If my math almost works, you joined PFD in the early ’70s, when the Rizzo Brothers were in business. That would put you before Scoot Air Packs. You’re still breathing, braely, after sucking in all of that smoke, and as you know, there were all bad kinds of chemicals in that smoke. Again, you have my respect.
      You are so right with your money grabbing formula. To name one, Billionaire Bill Gates, is the opposite. Hopefully, there are more folks like him.
      Of course your boss is into Bingo. Does she share the winnings ? ( right)
      I’ll have you know that kids today are clue less about coal. However, when my boys were very young, in the ’70s, they got coal in their stocking.
      BTW. The firewood comes from our trees. The coal out here is a few hundred a ton and the electric bill is about $100.00. As long as we can handle the chores, we’ll keep our money and let PGW and friends go after you city folk.
      You love this blog. Is it the new talk at your coffee club ?
      Tony

      1. ’66 to be exact Tony. We had the Scot Paks but our Badge of Honor was not donning them.
        Crazy, not smart, but to us it wasted time. And oh yeah we thought we were tough. I believe it was all across the country. It’s encouraging now to see everybody wearing them, even outside. To be honest I left early, too much Happy Horse Manure. And how quickly 9/11 is fading. And the poor cops today. Yes I’m bitter with the way their treated.

        Her winnings is her allowance, haha! that’ll be the day!

        The breakfast club still avoids politics, religion, anything serious just like when active. Nothing but laughter and repeated stories. That’s my second home!!!

  10. Just to make sure everyone understands my position. The La-La land tree huggers really believe “electric” cars are the answer. They are not. The average electric car gets 250-300 miles a charge under the best of conditions. A drop in temperature results in a drop in mileage. Tesla’s best gets 370 (it costs upward of $70,000).
    Apply that to reality — New York City to Buffalo, NY, is roughly 550 miles (+/-). That calls for at least one charge. How long does it take to charge? Best I can determine is that it takes roughly 10 hours. “Fast” charges (240 volt) are being worked on — 30 minutes. Picture a New York or New Jersey Thruway gas station with cars lined up for 30 minutes or more (compared to todays — 3-5 minutes).
    Let’s look at electricity source — roughly 64% comes from “bad” sources — coal, natural gas and nuke. Wind and solar provides a tiny percentage and both are already suffering the scorn of the “nimby’s.”
    I could go on but I think you are now clear where I stand on all this “green.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *